1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

Wood-Treating
Sites and Their
Cleanup
he wood-preserving industry treats lumber with various chemicals to protect
against insect damage and decay. Chemically preserved wood is used in products for outdoor use such as railway ties, fencing,
telephone poles, exterior plywood panels, and
outdoor decks (23). The industry has operated in
the United States for over 100 years, with sites
often having operated for decades (23). Spills
from the treatment process have left many of
these sites heavily contaminated with the chemicals used to preserve wood.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has identified 56 wood-treating sites among the
Superfund sites in the United States (17).
Because the processes that have been used at
these wood-treating sites are generally so similar,
the contamination and cleanup needs are also
similar. Recognizing this, EPA has recently
moved to standardize the process for selecting
cleanup remedies. Following a thorough review
of past experience with remedial activities, the
Superfund program has developed a short list of
preferred cleanup technologies or presumptive
remedies for wood-treating sites. It is intended
that presumptive remedies will be selected for
future remedial actions at all wood-treating sites,
except under unusual site-specific circumstances.
T
2
Wood-treating sites are one of three categories of
sites for which EPA has designated presumptive
remedies.
For sites contaminated with preservatives such
as those used at the Texarkana Wood Preserving
site, EPA suggests bioremediation as the preferred cleanup remedy. If bioremediation is
found to be infeasible, thermal desorption methods are to be considered. Incineration may be
selected if bioremediation and thermal desorption are not feasible. In downplaying the role of
incineration among the presumptive remedies,
EPA stresses the difficulty in gaining public support, but recognizes the method’s effectiveness.
In addition to the technologies that EPA now
identifies as presumptive remedies, a number of
other innovative technologies have been selected
for use at wood-treating sites in recent years.
OTA has reviewed 47 records of decision
(RODs) for 40 Superfund wood-treating sites to
investigate the selection of remedies. This chapter provides a description of the contaminants
typically found at wood-treating sites, a list of
the remedies that have been selected at Superfund wood-treating sites, and a summary of
EPA’s recent efforts to standardize the remedy
selection process at wood-treating sites. The
| 9
10 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
remedial technologies are described in greater
detail in chapter 3.
WOOD-TREATING SITES
The wood-preserving industry pressure treats
wood with chemicals that protect against insects
and fungus. Just a few preserving chemicals have
been widely used by the industry. The oldest preservative process treats wood with creosote, a
tarry liquid derived from coal (see box 2-1) (17).
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) became widely used as
a preservative after 1950, although its purchase
and use is now restricted (see box 2-2) (17).
Metal salts made from chromium, copper,
arsenic, or zinc (e.g., chromated copper arsenate
[CCA]) are now the most frequently used preservatives. The metal salts present special cleanup
problems that we do not consider in this paper.
Almost 60 wood-preserving sites are on the
National Priorities List, which lists facilities eligible for cleanup under the Superfund program.
Hundreds more may have been abandoned and
are in need of cleanup. Most of these sites
present similar cleanup problems (see the
descriptions of five Superfund wood-treating
sites presented in boxes 2-3 through 2-7). The
older sites in need of cleanup typically used creosote and PCP. The treatment process produced
significant spillage, waste sludges, and contaminated wastewater. The Texarkana Wood Preserving site is typical of the many wood-treating sites
that have used creosote and PCP over a number
of decades.
At these sites, wood was generally treated
under pressure with creosote or PCP in a heated
oil-based solution (21,23). After treatment, the
wood was removed from the pressure chamber
and allowed to drip dry outside, resulting in large
volumes of contaminated soil. Other treatment
wastes include wastewater and sludges. Wastewater was generated as a condensate in the treatment process and also by rinsing tanks and
equipment. After separation of recoverable
chemicals, wastewater was often spread onsite or
stored in evaporation ponds. An oily sludge gradually accumulates in wastewater evaporation
areas and also in treatment cylinders and storage
tanks. This sludge was historically dumped into
unlined pits onsite. Sludge pits found at woodtreating sites can contain very high concentrations of the preservative chemicals, which may
limit treatment options for these areas (17).
The preservatives PCP and creosote are found
as contaminants, alone or in combination, at
nearly all abandoned wood-treating sites in the
United States (21,23). Both of these materials
can be hazardous to human health. Creosote contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Commercial grades of PCP always contain small
amounts of dioxins and furans as impurities. It is
thought that additional dioxins might be generated by heating PCP solutions (17). The dioxins,
furans, and PAHs are considered by EPA and
other health agencies to be likely human carcinogens (see boxes 2-1 and 2-2).
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 11
BOX 2-1: Creosote and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Creosote has been widely used as a preservative in the wood treatment industry for more than a century. It is an oily, translucent, brown-to-black liquid with a sharp smoky or tarry odor. Creosote is produced from high-temperature carbonization of bituminous coal. It is not a single chemical, but rather a
complex mixture, containing several thousand compounds. It is about 85 percent polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), along with phenolic compounds (about 10 percent) and a variety of other related
chemicals.
The PAHs contained in creosote are a group of more than 100 related chemicals that are both manmade and naturally occurring. They are found in crude oil, coal, coal tar pitch, and road and roofing tar.
Although in pure form a single PAH is usually a white or pale green solid, they almost always occur as a
mixture of PAHs. Typically, human exposure involves exposure to a mixture of PAHs.
The human health effects of the individual PAHs found in creosote vary. About 17 PAHs have been
studied extensively. These 17 are considered the most harmful, the most likely to be involved in human
exposure, and the most frequently identified at Superfund sites. People living near waste sites contaminated with PAHs may be exposed to them by contact with contaminated air, water, or soil. Most PAHs that
enter the body are excreted in feces and urine within a few days.
PAHs are considered by EPA and other public health organizations to be human carcinogens. The
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that certain PAHs “may reasonably
be anticipated to be carcinogens.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that certain PAHs “are possibly carcinogenic to humans.” EPA has determined that certain PAHs
“are probable human carcinogens.”
Reports with humans show that individuals exposed to PAHs by breathing or skin contact for long
periods can develop cancer. Some PAHs cause tumors in laboratory animals when breathed, eaten, or
after long periods of skin contact. Mice fed high levels of certain PAHs during pregnancy had difficulty
reproducing and so did their offspring. Offspring from pregnant mice fed PAHs showed other harmful
effects, including birth defects, although there is no information about similar effects in humans.
PAHs have low water solubility, but they can contaminate underground water that comes into contact
with soil contaminated by them. They have been found in some U.S. drinking water supplies. PAHs can
evaporate, but most will stick to solid particles in soil. In soil, most PAHs can break down in weeks to
months, mostly because of microorganisms, although very large PAH molecules are more stable. Some
wood-treatment sites have cleanup standards only for those PAHs considered to be carcinogenic while
other sites may focus on all the PAHs present.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Wood Preserving Sites, prepared by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc., EPA/600/R-92/182 (Washington, DC: October 1992); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments,
and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites,” EPA/540/F-95/006 (Draft), Washington, DC, May 1995; and U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),” draft, Atlanta, GA, October 1993.
12 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
BOX 2-2: Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) has been used for many years as a preservative in the wood treatment
industry. It is a manufactured substance not occurring naturally in the environment. PCP was formerly one
of the most heavily used pesticides in the United States. Today its purchase and use is restricted to certified applicators, and it is used industrially as a wood preservative for power line poles, fence posts, etc.
Before restriction, PCP was widely used as a wood preservative. It is made by only one company in the
United States. Pure PCP is a white crystalline material, but the commercial grade form usually found at
waste sites is dark gray to brown.
Commercial grade PCP used for treating wood is a mixture of many related compounds. It contains
PCP (85 to 90 percent); 2,3,4,6-tetra chlorophenol (4 to 8 percent), more highly chlorinated chlorophenols
(2 to 6 percent), and dioxins and furans (about 0.1 percent). Dioxins and furans are also mixtures of various related compounds. The principal dioxins and furans found in commercial grade PCP have six to
eight chlorine atoms present in their structures. The most toxic dioxin and the one of greatest regulatory
concern is 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin (TCDD), which contains four chlorine atoms in its structure.
Analysis of commercial PCP produced in the U.S. has not found TCDD. But some wood-preservation
methods use PCP at higher temperatures, which might produce traces of TCDD from the PCP itself.
Octachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (the dioxin containing 8 chlorine atoms) is by far the largest dioxin contaminant, while the most toxic dioxin, TCDD, occurs only at trace or below detection levels. According to EPA,
octachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin is about 1000-fold less toxic than TCDD. In any event, EPA recommends
that site managers should ensure that sampling for dioxins and furans is conducted at all wood-treating
sites known to have used PCP.
Public health agencies consider that PCP, at most, might be a human carcinogen. The International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined PCP is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to
humans, while EPA classified PCP as a “probable human carcinogen”. Large doses of PCP can cause
death, and long-term exposure to lower levels can cause damage to liver, kidneys, blood, and nervous
system.
However, there is no convincing evidence from epidemiological studies that PCP causes cancer in
humans, although it does cause cancer in some laboratory animals fed large doses for long periods.
Many, but not all, of the harmful effects of PCP may be due to the impurities in the commercial grade,
including dioxins and furans. Although pure PCP might not be a human carcinogen, the small amounts of
dioxins and furans found in the commercial grade of PCP might account for its apparent animal carcinogenicity.
The physical properties of PCP are such that it will not evaporate very quickly from contaminated soil
or sludge. The most significant human exposure comes through breathing and skin contact, and it does
not seem to accumulate in the human body, but is excreted in urine. After environmental release onto soil
or sludge, most PCP will tend to slowly move with any water that contacts that contaminated soil or
sludge. PCP will tend to stick to soil particles. It is broken down in soils and surface waters by microorganisms and in surface waters and air by sunlight.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Wood Preserving Sites, prepared by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc., EPA/600/R-92/182 (Washington, DC: October 1992); U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol,” draft, Atlanta, GA, October 1992; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, “Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites,” EPA/540/F-95/006,
PB 95-963410 (Draft), Washington, DC: May 1995.
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 13
BOX 2-3: The American Creosote Works Site, Pensacola, Florida
The 18-acre American Creosote Works (Pensacola plant) site is in a dense, moderately commercial
and residential area of Pensacola, Florida. A wood-preserving facility operated at this site from 1902 to
1981. During this time, process wastewater containing pentachlorophenol (PCP) was discharged into
unlined, onsite surface impoundment ponds. Before 1970, these impoundment ponds were allowed to
overflow through a spillway into neighboring bays. After 1970, wastewater was discharged to designated
onsite spillage areas. Additional discharges occurred during periods of heavy rainfall when the ponds
overflowed.
In March 1980, the city found considerable quantities of oily, asphaltic, creosote material in the
groundwater near the site. Because of the threat posed to human health and the environment, EPA and
the state performed an emergency cleanup in 1983. This included dewatering the ponds, treating the
water, and discharging treated water into the city sewer system. The sludge in the ponds was then solidified and capped.
EPA signed a record of decision (ROD) in 1985 requiring all onsite and offsite contaminated solids,
sludge, and sediment to be placed in an onsite RCRA-permitted landfill. A second ROD, signed in 1989,
addresses remediation of contaminated surface soil. A future ROD will address treatment of contaminated subsurface soil, sludge, and groundwater. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the surface soil are organics, including dioxins, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
PCP.
The selected remedial action for this site includes
■ excavating and treating 23,000 cubic yards of PAH-contaminated soil using solid-phase bioremediation at an onsite land treatment area. Dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, and soil moisture content
will be monitored,
■ disposal of treated soil onsite in the excavated areas or by spreading the soil over the entire site,
■ spraying collected drain water over the treatment area to moisten soil,
■ repairing fences around the site, monitoring the site cap, and
■ implementing groundwater use restrictions.
The estimated cost for this approach is $2,275,000.
SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, “Record of Decision: American Creosote Works Inc. Site,” Atlanta, GA,
January 5, 1989.
14 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
BOX 2-4: The Koppers Site, Oroville, California
The Koppers site is a 200-acre operating wood-treating plant in Butte County, California. Nearby land
use is mixed agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial. Although there is a history of wood-treating operations at the site, they were greatly expanded in 1955 when Koppers Company, Inc., became the
owner and operator. Pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, and chromated copper arsenate (CCA) solution
are among the chemicals that have been used at this site.
Wastewater discharge and other site activities have resulted in contamination of unlined ponds, soil,
and debris. PCP was detected in onsite groundwater in 1971 and in residential wells in 1972. Pursuant to
a state order, Koppers conducted cleanup activities from 1973-74, including groundwater pumping and
discharge to spray fields and offsite disposal of contaminated debris, and process changes, including
construction of a wastewater treatment plant. In 1986, Koppers provided nearby residents an alternate
water supply for domestic uses.
Following a 1987 explosion and fire at a PCP wood-treatment process facility, EPA issued a removal
order requiring cleanup of fire debris and removal and stabilization of surface soil.
The present record of decision (ROD) addresses the remaining contamination in onsite soil and
groundwater affected. The primary contaminants of concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), PCP, dioxins and furans, and metals including arsenic and chromium.
The selected soil remedy includes
■ onsite biodegradation of 110,000 cubic yards of PCP-contaminated soil,
■ excavation and soil washing of 200,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with wood-treating wastes
with disposal of treated soil onsite and treatment of residual contamination in the washing fluid in an
onsite treatment facility,
■ installation of a low-permeability cap over the wood-treating process area (an interim remedy) and
down gradient extraction wells, and
■ excavation and chemical fixation of 4,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with metals, followed by
onsite disposal.
The groundwater remedy includes pumping and treatment of approximately 22,000,000 cubic yards
of groundwater using activated carbon, reinjection of treated waste to the groundwater, and formalization
of the provision of an existing alternate water supply and extension, if needed, of the water supply during
implementation of the remedy.
According to the ROD the estimated cost for this cleanup strategy was $77,700,000.
EPA has had some difficulties implementing bioremediation at the Koppers site. It found that the soil
excavated for a bioremediation treatability study was contaminated with more dioxin than anticipated.
This caused the cancellation of the treatability study and a switch to a removal action, placing soil in a
RCRA-approved landfill. The soil washing pilot test showed that soil washing was not capable of meeting
cleanup standards. Bioremediation effectively destroyed PCP but was not effective in reducing dioxins.
The owner is reevaluating soil remedies for the remainder of this site.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, “Record of Decision: Koppers Co. Inc. (Oroville Plant) Site,” San Francisco, CA, September 1989; Fred Schauffler, Project Manager, EPA Region 9, Oroville, CA, personal communication, July 13,
1995 and written comments, August 8, 1995.
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 15
BOX 2-5: The Koppers Site, Morrisville, North Carolina
The 52-acre Koppers Morrisville site is a wood-laminating facility in Morrisville, Wake County, North
Carolina. Surrounding land use is a mixture of commercial, light industrial, and rural residential. The site
has been used by lumber companies since 1896. In 1962, Koppers began treating wood at the site using
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and isopropyl ether injected into wood. Process wastes were put into unlined
lagoons. Koppers discontinued wood treatment in 1975, but past wood-treatment processes and associated disposal activities have left the site contaminated with PCP, dioxins, and isopropyl ether affecting
the soil, groundwater, and surface water.
In 1989, in response to state studies of water contamination from the site, nearby residents began
using public water lines instead of wells to obtain drinking water. In 1990, EPA required extensive studies
of the soil, groundwater, drainage pathways, and ponds, and also determined that additional studies
were needed to further assess contamination of the surface soil in the lagoon and wood-treatment process areas. In 1992, EPA completed a record of decision (ROD) for the site that specified incineration as
the primary remedy and base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD) as the “contingency remedy” whose use
would be dependent upon the results of a treatability study. One driving force for providing for an alternative to incineration was the strong interest of the community.
The primary strategy was offsite incineration of soil involving
■ excavation of contaminated soils from lagoon and process areas and transportation to an offsite
permitted incineration facility,
■ extraction of contaminated groundwater from within the plume via extraction well(s) and piping it to
an onsite carbon adsorption treatment unit,
■ use of institutional controls including fencing of the pond, lagoon, and wood-treatment process
areas.
Base-catalyzed dehalogenation was selected as a contingency cleanup strategy. According to the
1992 ROD, BCD could substitute for offsite incineration if it proved itself in treatability studies. BCD would
involve the excavation of contaminated soils from the lagoon and process areas, and transportation to an
onsite BCD treatment system,
According to the ROD, the estimated cost for the selected cleanup strategy was $11,500,000.
The treatability study with BCD was completed in August 1993. The results showed that BCD was
effective in treating soil contaminated with both PCP and dioxins. However, it may be premature to consider BCD a general technology for wood-treatment site cleanup. The size of this demonstration was very
small compared to other wood-treatment sites. According to the site engineer at Koppers, the BCD demonstration involved only 700 cubic yards of soil; the amounts of soil requiring treatment at some of the
largest contaminated wood-treatment sites are as much as 100 times larger (see table 2-1). Another concern raised by one EPA wood treatment site manager is that the results from this BCD trial seem to show
significant stack emissions, presumably from the thermal desorption stage, that are equal to or greater
than those that would be seen if incineration had been used instead of BCD.
For BCD to be considered successful at this site, it had to achieve 7 parts-per-billion (ppb) or lower
dioxin levels in the treated soil. However, the soil levels were fairly low to begin with and dioxin soil concentrations were probably not very important for the choice of BCD as a soil cleanup technology.
(continued)
16 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
BOX 2-5: The Koppers Site, Morrisville, North Carolina (Cont’d.)
The neighboring community was brought into the treatability study process. More than 100 citizens
were invited to observe the results of the BCD treatability study. According to one EPA official involved
with the study, the citizen involvement was very helpful in the overall process of developing the alternative. A new ROD has been approved that specifies BCD as the primary means of treating contaminated
soil. Koppers as the principal responsible site owner, is in the process of awarding a contract to build a
full-scale onsite BCD treatment facility.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, “Record of Decision: Koppers Site (Morrisville Plant),” Atlanta, GA,
December 1992; B. Hudson, Site Engineer, Koppers Superfund site, Morrisville, NC, personal communication, April 12, 1995; E.
Hendrick, Site Manager, EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX, personal communication, April 12, 1995.
BOX 2-6: The Arkwood, Inc., Site, Omaha, Arkansas
The 15-acre Arkwood site is a former wood-treatment facility in Boone County, Arkansas. Land use in
the vicinity of the site is primarily agricultural and light industrial. Approximately 200 residences are
located within 1 mile of the site, and 35 domestic water supply wells are within 1.5 miles of the site.
Groundwater on or near the site is highly susceptible to contamination as a result of underground cavities, enlarged fractures, and conduits that hinder monitoring and pumping.
From 1962 to 1973, Arkwood operated a pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote wood treatment facility at the site. In 1986, the site owner dismantled the plant. State investigations conducted during the
1980s documented PCP and creosote contamination in surface water, soil, debris, and buildings
throughout the site. Contaminated surface features at the site include the wood-treatment facility, a sinkhole area contaminated with oily waste, a ditch area, a wood storage area, and an ash pile.
In 1987, EPA ordered the site owner to perform an immediate removal action that included implementing site access restrictions, such as fencing and sign postings.
The present record of decision (ROD) addresses remediation of all affected media and provides the
final remedy for the site. The primary contaminants affecting the soil, sludge, debris, and groundwater are
organics including PCP, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxins.
The selected remedial action for this site includes
■ excavating approximately 21,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sludge followed by soil
washing,
■ onsite incineration of approximately 7,000 cubic yards of materials that exceed cleanup levels,
■ incineration of any free oil wood-treating material,
■ using washed and decontaminated materials and any residual ash for backfilling,
■ covering the site with a soil cap and planting revegetation,
■ site access restrictions including fencing, and
■ monitoring of drinking and groundwater and connecting affected residences to municipal water
lines.
According to the ROD, the cost of this approach would be $10,300,000.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, “Record of Decision: Arkwood, Inc. Site,” Dallas, TX, September
1990.
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 17
BOX 2-7: The United Creosoting Site, Conroe, Texas
The 100-acre United Creosoting site in Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas, is occupied by a residential subdivision, a distributing company, and a construction company. From 1946 to 1972, the United Creosoting Company operated a wood preserving facility at the site. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote
were used in the wood-preservation process, and process wastes were stored in waste ponds.
During 1980, the county used soil and waste pond backfill from the site on local roads. After residents
living near the improved roadways experienced health problems, the county sampled and compared
leachate composition from the affected roadways and the site. They determined that leachate from both
the site and the roadways was contaminated with PCP. Roadway soil was subsequently removed and
disposed of using land farm treatment.
In 1983, in response to contaminated stormwater runoff from the former waste pond areas, the property owner was directed under terms of an EPA Administrative Order to regrade contaminated soil, divert
surface water drainage away from the residential portion of the site, and cap the contaminated soil.
The present record of decision (ROD) specifies a final remedy for contaminated soil at the site and
complements a 1986 ROD that determined that no action was necessary to remediate shallow groundwater. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are organics including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCP, and dioxins.
The selected remedial action for this site includes
■ excavation and onsite treatment of 94,000 cubic yards of soil containing contaminants that exceed
target action levels using critical fluid extraction with liquid propane,
■ offsite incineration of residues containing the concentrated contaminants produced by this technology,
■ recycling or discharge of wastewater generated during the treatment process, and
■ spreading treated soil on the commercial portion of the site, and backfilling residential areas with
clean fill.
According to the ROD, the estimated cost for this remedial action is $22,000,000. However, based on
a signed contract for a major portion of the remedial activities and estimates for the remainder of the
work, the expected cost of this cleanup is now expected to exceed $34,000,000.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, “Record of Decision: United Creosoting Co. Site,” Dallas, TX, September 1989; Hendrick, E., Senior Project Manager, EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX, written comments, August 9, 1995.
18 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
Sometimes residues of the preserving chemicals can be found at a site in a nearly pure form
(21,23). Typically though, the highest concentrations of waste contaminants are found near treatment areas and waste pits (23). At many woodtreating sites, the primary contamination has
moved through the soils into nearby ground and
surface waters (23). Because PCP and most
PAHs have very low water solubility and were
often used after being dissolved in oil, the contaminants can form non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs) when they come in contact with ground
or surface water (23). This means that the contaminant is in a liquid form that either floats on
or sinks below water it contacts. Contaminants in
the form of NAPLs are particularly difficult to
locate and treat.
EPA AND WOOD-TREATING SITES
Since 1980, EPA has classified 56 wood preserving sites as Superfund sites (17). At about 40 of
these sites, EPA has completed the process of
selecting a cleanup strategy for the soil, sludge,
sediments, and water contaminated by woodtreatment wastes. EPA’s process for selecting a
cleanup strategy at a Superfund site is described
in the ROD, which summarizes the basis for the
decision and describes the remedial strategy.
EPA’s work with wood-treating sites has produced about 47 RODs for 40 such sites. The
details of these sites, the cleanup strategies
selected by EPA, and the current land use of the
area surrounding the site are summarized in table
2-1. Current land use was included as an indicator of future use of a contaminated site.
Not surprisingly, the similarity in the contamination across wood-treating sites has resulted in
the selection of similar treatment and remediation strategies. At least 10 approaches have been
selected by EPA for cleaning such sites. For the
treatment of contaminated soil, sludge, and sediments at wood-treating sites, table 2-1 shows that
EPA has generally selected from among the following strategies: bioremediation, incineration,
thermal desorption, soil washing or flushing,
chemical dechlorination, solvent extraction, site
capping, solidification and stabilization techniques, construction of barrier walls, and disposal in RCRA authorized landfills. Figure 1-1 in
chapter 1 shows how often EPA selected various
strategies for dealing with soil, sludge, and sediments at 40 wood-treating sites as revealed in 47
RODs.
Incineration was a frequently selected remedy
during the period from 1986 to 1990. Since 1990,
the selected remedy is much more likely to have
been bioremediation (perhaps in combination
with soil washing or with limited incineration of
the most contaminated wastes), thermal desorption, or chemical dehalogenation. Groundwater
at wood-treating sites is typically dealt with by
pump-and-treat methods in conjunction with
ongoing monitoring. According to EPA, a general approach now used at wood-treating sites is
bioremediation to remove creosotes and PCPs
from soil, followed by capping and immobilization to deal with residual dioxins or metals (i.e.,
to ensure they do not leach from the soil). The
Libby Groundwater site (see table 2-1) is one
place where such an approach is being tried (1).
Generally no single technology can be used to
clean up an entire wood-treating site (8). Rather,
as in most of the RODs reviewed by OTA, a
combination of treatment technologies and control methods will be required. Boxes 2-3 through
2-7 illustrate the variety of technologies selected,
although many of these have not yet been fully
implemented. Often some contamination will
remain even after cleanup, and various institutional or engineering control strategies must be
used to prevent exposure to the remaining contamination. For example, the combination of
bioremediation or incineration followed by sitecapping (covering the site with a liner and clean
soil) and restrictions on future site use was used
in more than half the cases.
In some cases a sequence of cleanup remedies
in a “treatment train” may be needed to address
the various contaminants. For example, when
metallic wastes are mixed with organic (PCP and
creosote) contaminants, bioremediation or thermal desorption to remove the organics may be
followed by immobilization to control the metal-
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 19
lic waste (10). A variety of treatments may also
be used to clean up different areas of a contaminated site. Hot spots can be particularly difficult
to clean. A site manager may prefer to excavate
sludges, perhaps incinerating this material, while
applying bioremediation to the less contaminated
soils (1). These combined approaches have been
specified in the remedial actions for wood-treating sites reviewed by OTA.
The selection of a technology as documented
in a ROD does not necessarily mean that the
technology proved effective. In many cases,
cleanup has not been completed at the sites
reviewed by OTA; in other cases, an unsuccessful trial of the selected technology has led to a
change in plans.
EPA’S PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY
APPROACH
EPA has found that most wood-treating sites
have very similar characteristics (21,23). EPA
has determined that it is useful to group woodtreating sites together based upon their common
characteristics, such as the contaminants present,
the environmental media affected by those contaminants, and the cleanup technologies selected
(23). Past experience with such sites can be summarized to streamline future site investigations
and remedy selection (21,23).
As part of an effort to accelerate cleanup at
Superfund sites, the EPA Superfund program is
putting together a group of cleanup strategies
that have been used successfully at similar sites
in the past (21,22,23). EPA has also reviewed
other technologies that have less available performance data but nevertheless may be appropriate or useful for wood-treating sites (21, 23).
EPA calls these proven cleanup technologies
for common site types presumptive remedies.
Presumptive remedies are technologies for common types of sites selected on the basis of historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA’s
scientific and engineering expertise (23). EPA’s
presumptive remedies program uses Superfund
program experience in an effort to streamline
cleanup (23). The presumptive remedy approach
focuses only on proven technologies. In general
the approach would not consider a small-scale
demonstration such as pilot plant demonstrations
as sufficient proof for a recommended presumptive remedy (1). However, some other technologies with more limited performance data are also
considered by EPA (21,23).
EPA’s presumptive remedies for treating soil,
sludge, and sediments at wood-treating sites with
organic contamination from creosote and PCP
are bioremediation, thermal desorption, and
incineration. Immobilization is the presumptive
remedy for treating inorganic contaminants at
sites where metallic salts have been used (23).
The presumptive remedy process is a decisionmaking strategy for selecting among these remedies. EPA expects to use this process at all woodtreating sites and expects to select one of the
remedies unless there are unusual site-specific
circumstances. Bioremediation should be chosen
unless it is shown to be infeasible. Incineration
should be selected only if bioremediation and
thermal desorption have both been shown to be
infeasible. So far, EPA’s presumptive remedy
approach for wood-treating site cleanup covers
only the contaminated soils, sludges, and sediments at wood-treating sites. EPA is currently
working on presumptive remedies for groundwater cleanup at wood-treating sites (23).
According to EPA’s presumptive remedy
analysis for wood-treating sites, incineration is
the most technically developed and proven technology (see table 2-2); however, it was not designated by EPA as the primary presumptive
remedy because of the difficulty in getting public
support for incineration. The other technologies,
including bioremediation, have track records
indicating they may be appropriate for this type
of site; however, the selection of technologies
that are less proven or less capable than incineration will always bring a greater risk of failure to
achieve cleanup goals.
EPA divided the presumptive remedy project
for wood-treating sites into two parts. One
project was directed toward summarizing
cleanup of PCP and creosote contamination. A
second effort was to evaluate dioxin cleanup
20 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
issues separately, but EPA has not yet completed
this aspect of the problem (1). Thus, the woodtreating site presumptive remedies documentation from EPA does not specifically address the
dioxin issue (1). For example, bioremediation
might have some limitations as a remedy for sites
like Texarkana, where PCP has been used. It
might give excellent results for cleaning up the
PCP and creosote, but it is not likely to adequately clean up the associated dioxins. Other
approaches may be needed to supplement bioremediation in such cases, such as soil capping and
site use restrictions (1).
EPA warns that the remediation technologies
considered in its presumptive remedy strategy
are at different stages of technical maturity—
from proven to innovative to emerging. Application of a specific technology to clean up a woodtreating site requires careful matching with specific site conditions. Estimates of treatment costs
for more mature technologies such as incineration and bioremediation can be quite reliable, but
estimates for innovative and emerging technologies can be less reliable. Incineration and biological treatment are proven at the commercial scale
(17). Nevertheless, most alternatives, including
biological treatment and thermal desorption,
require site-specific treatability tests to ensure
they will work (17).
As a practical example of the risks of using
less mature technologies, the wood-treating site
project was the first presumptive remedy
approach attempted by EPA, but because of
delays it will be the third one actually published
(1). The main delay was caused by questions
about the efficacy of bioremediation, the primary
presumptive remedy indicated for wood-treating
sites (1). Although bioremediation has been
selected for a number of wood-treating sites, it
has only been completed at very few sites (1).
Moreover, there have been some failures with
bioremediation, sometimes caused by simple
oversights by the site managers and facility operators, such as overlooking the proper monitoring
of soil pH (1). Bioremediation also may have difficulty achieving very stringent cleanup levels
sometimes required for carcinogenic PAHs.
SUMMARY
In summary, contaminated wood-treating Superfund sites are a common type of site in the
United States. The wood-treating processes and
the types of chemicals used as wood preservatives were very similar at all wood-treating sites,
thus the contamination problems and the technologies and strategies that appear to work at these
sites are also similar. EPA’s decisions about how
to clean up contaminated wood-treating sites
show that, in general, about 10 technologies or
strategies are used at these sites, almost always in
combination. EPA has analyzed wood-treating
site cleanups and, based on success stories, recommends about a half dozen different technologies as presumptive remedies for cleaning up
such sites. EPA warns that most of these alternative technologies will not work in all situations
and that a site-specific analysis almost always
will be required. Nevertheless, it appears that
decisionmakers have a range of options for
addressing cleanup problems at wood-treating
sites.
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 21
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
American Creosote
Pensacola, FL
FLD008161994
85-09-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs
Commercial &
residential
12
?
RCRA landfill of soil
and sludges
American Creosote
Pensacola, FL
FLD008161994
89-09-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCPs,
Dioxins
Commercial &
residential
18
23,000 yd3 soil
Bioremediation of soil
American Creosote
Jackson, TN
TND007018799
89-01-05
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs
Partially
developed
60
?
Incineration of
sludges offsite at a
fixed facility or onsite
in a mobile incinerator
American Creosote
Winnfield, LA
LAD000239814
93-4-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Mixed
agricultural,
residential, &
recreational
34
25,000 yd3
highly
contaminated
sludge,
250,000 yd3
soil
Incineration of
sludge;
bioremediation of soil
American Crossarm
& Conduit
Chehalis, WA
WAD057311094
93-06-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
dioxins
Commercial,
light
industrial,
residential, &
recreational
?
?
Remove most highly
contaminated soil;
capping; institutional
controls
Arkwood, Inc.
Omaha, AR
ARD084930148
90-09-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Agricultural &
light industrial
15
21,000 yd3
soil & sludge,
3,000 gal
sinkhole liquids
Soil washing or
incineration onsite if
washed soil exceeds
PCP, dioxin, or PAHs
cleanup levels; pump
and treat oily
sinkhole liquids;
monitor groundwater
Baxter/Union
Pacific Tie Treating
Laramie, WY
WYD061112470
86-09-26
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
?
140
?
Slurry barrier wall to
delay offsite
movement of
contaminated
groundwater and
surface soils while
planning and
implementing more
permanent remedies
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell, LA
LAD980745632
87-03-31
Creosote
PAHs
?
55
150,000 yd3
sediment
Incineration, capping
(continued)
22 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
Broderick Wood
Products Co.
Denver, CO
COD000110254
91-09-24
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Predominately
industrial
64
2,170 yd3
sludge, 500 gal
oil
Transport sludge and
oil to a RCRA
recycling facility;
offsite incineration of
recycler residues
(amended remedial
action)
Broderick Wood
Products Co.
Denver, CO
COD000110254
88-06-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Primarily
industrial
64
4,000 yd3
sludge, 31,000
yd3 soil
Incineration onsite of
sludge; groundwater
monitoring
Brown Wood
Preserving
Live Oak, FL
FLD980728935
88-04-08
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs
Rural & light
agriculture
55
11,500 tons soil Biodegradation and
transport of most
severely
contaminated soil and
sludge to a RCRA
hazardous waste
facility; and groundwater monitoring
Burlington Northern Creosote
Brainerd/Baxter, MN
MND000686196
86-06-04
PAHs
Industrial &
residential
?
9,500 yd3 soil
Bioremediation of soil
and sludge; capping
with a RCRAapproved cover
Cabot/Koppers,
Gainesville, FL
FLD980709356
90-09-27
Creosote
PAHs
Commercial
& residential
99
6,400 yd3 soil
Soil washing and
bioremediation
followed by
solidification and
stabilization;
pumping and
treatment of
groundwater;
monitoring groundwater and surface
water
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Fayetteville, NC
NCD003188828
89-06-30
Creosote
PAHs
9
Industrial,
agricultural,
and residential
?
Soil flushing or a low
thermal desorption
process
Coleman Evans,
Jacksonville, FL
FLD991279894
86-09-25
PCP
PCP
Residential &
light
commercial &
industrial
9,000 yd3 soils
and sediments
Incineration of more
contaminated soil;
groundwater pump
and treat
11
(continued)
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 23
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
Coleman Evans
Jacksonville, FL
FLD991279894
90-09-26
PCP
PCP
Residential,
light
commercial &
industrial
11
27,000 yd3 soil
& sediment
Soil and sediment
washing;
bioremediation,
solidification, and
stabilization of fines or
sludges; covering the
solidified mass;
pumping and
recovering
groundwater
Havertown PCP Site
Haverford Twp, PA
PAD002338010
91-09-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Mixed
residential &
commercial
12-15
?
Interim remedies
include free product
recovery wells, an
onsite groundwater
treatment plant, and
monitoring
groundwater
Havertown PCP Site
Havertown, PA
PAD002338010
89-09-29
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Commercial &
residential
12-15
200 barrels
soil, 6,000 gal
wastewater
Offsite land disposal
of soil; oily debris and
wastewater stored;
multimedia monitoring
Idaho Pole Co.
Bozeman, MT
MTD006232276
92-09-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Light industrial
50
42,000 yd3 soil
Bioremediation, soil
flushing, capping
J H Baxter Co.
Weed, CA
CAD000625731
90-09-27
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Operating
wood site,
pasture,
woodland, &
residential
33
>41,000 yd3
soil
Biological treatment
and chemical fixation
of contaminated soil;
groundwater
pumping with
biological treatment;
multimedia monitoring
Koppers
(Morrisville)
Morrisville, NC
NCD003200383
92-12-23
PCP
PCP,
Dioxins
Commercial,
light industry,
& rural
residential
52
2,930 yd3 soil
Offsite incineration;
treatability studies for
dechlorination as a
contingency remedy
Koppers Co., Inc.,
(Oroville Plant)
Oroville, CA
CAD009112087
89-09-13
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Operating
wood site,
agricultural,
residential,
commercial,
& industrial
200
334,000 yd3
soil,
22,000,000
yd3
groundwater
Biodegradation in
situ or washing of soil;
capping; pump and
treat groundwater
Koppers Co., Inc.
Galesburg, IL
ILD990817991
89-06-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Sparsely
populated
105
15,200 yd3 soil
Bioremediation
(continued)
24 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Koppers Co., Inc.
Texarkana, TX
TXD980623904
88-09-23
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Residential
62
3,300-19,400
yd3 soil
Soil washing, offsite
disposal
Koppers Co., Inc.
Texarkana, TX
TXD980623904
92-03-04
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Residential
62
?
Soil washing;
relocating residents;
deed restrictions
L.A. Clarke and Son
Fredericksburg, VA
VAD007972482
88-03-31
Creosote
PAHs
na
40
118,000 yd3
soil
Soil flushing and
in-situ
biodegradation;
sediments
biodegradation;
landfarming
excavated surface
soil, sediments, and
subsurface wetland
soil; and
groundwater
monitoring
Libby Groundwater
Contamination Site
Libby, MT
MTD980502736
86-09-26
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Active lumber
& plywood mill
?
?
Reduce human
exposure to
contaminated
groundwater by
continuing and
expanding a “buy
water” plan
sponsored by the
onsite company;
monitoring
Libby Groundwater
Contamination Site
Libby, MT
MTD980502736
88-12-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Residential
areas &
businesses
?
>30,000 yd3
soil & debris
Biodegradation of
soil and debris;
recycling and
incinerating
recovered NAPLs;
capping;
groundwater
bioremediation;
groundwater
monitoring
Macgillis & Gibbs
Co / Bell Lumber
Pole
New Brighton, MN
MND006192694
91-09-30
Creosote,
PCP
PCP,
PAHs,
Dioxins
Residential &
commercial
24
100,000 gal.
PCP waste oil
& sludges
Removing and
separating PCP waste
oil and sludges;
wastewater
bioremediation;
groundwater pump
and treat
Remediation strategyb
(continued)
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 25
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Mid-South
Mena, AR
ARD092916188
86-11-14
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
?
57
80,000 yd3 soil
Hot spot stabilization;
RCRA cap; oil and
sludges transported
to a RCRA facility;
groundwater pump
and treat; and
groundwater
monitoring
Midland Products
Ola, AR
ARD980745665
88-03-24
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
?
37
<24,600 yd3
soil, sediments
& sludges,
450,000 gal
groundwater,
620,000 gal.
lagoon fluids
Thermal destruction
of contaminated
soils, sludges, and
sediments; wasteand groundwater
pump and treat
Montana Pole and
Treating
Butte, MT
MTD006230635
93-09-21
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Primarily
industrial
?
262,000 yd3
soil, 9,100 yd3
debris, 26,500
gal sludge
LNAPs, and oil
Bioremediation of soil
hot spots; soil flushing
and in-situ
bioremediation;
incinerate offsite
sludge, NAPLs, and
oil; bioremediation or
UV oxidation of
groundwater
Moss-American
Kerr-Mcgee Oil Co.
Milwaukee, WI
WID039052626
90-09-27
Creosote
PAHs
Railroad
loading &
undeveloped
parkland
88
210,000 yd3
soil & sediment
Soil washing and
bioremediation;
covering remaining
soil; removing
pure-phase liquid
wastes for offsite
incineration; and
groundwater
monitoring
Newsom Brothers
Old Reichold
Columbia, MS
MSD980840045
89-09-18
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Primarily
residential
81
30,300 yd3 soil,
7,300 yd3
sediment, 650
yd3 tar-like
waste
Offsite disposal of soil
and sediment; offsite
incineration of tar
and soil and sediment
containing RCRA
hazardous wastes.
No remedial action
planned for
groundwater
Remediation strategyb
(continued)
26 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
North Cavalcade
Street Site
North Cavalcade,
TX
TXD980873343
88-06-28
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs
Residential,
commercial,
& industrial
21
22,300 yd3 soil,
5,600,000 gal
groundwater
Biodegradation in
situ of soil (after pilot
testing); groundwater
pump and treat;
offsite incineration of
groundwater NAPLS
Popile, Inc.
El Dorado, AR
ARD008052508
93-02-01
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP, other
organics
Mixed rural,
residential,
and
commercial
41
165,000 yd3
soil and sludge
Bioremediation and
capping; slurry walls
to contain
groundwater
Reilly Tar & Chem.
St. Louis Park, MN
MND980609804
90-09-28
Creosote
PAHs
Residential
80
?
Pump and treat;
groundwater
monitoring
Rentokil Virginia
Wood Preserving
Richmond, VA
VAD071040752
93-6-22
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Light
industrial,
commercial,
& residential
?
70 yd3
sediment &
sludge, 12,400
yd3 soil
Incinerate sediment
and sludge offsite
(with dechlorination
for dioxins); pump
and treat surface and
groundwater; lowtemperature thermal
desorption for soil;
capping treated soil;
monitoring
groundwater
Saunders Supply
Co.
Chuckatuck, VA
VAD003117389
91-09-30
PCP
PCP,
Dioxins
Mixed
residential &
commercial
7.3
25,000 tons soil Dechlorination of
sediment;
low-temperature
thermal desorption of
soil and sediment;
monitoring
groundwater
Selma Pressure
Treating Co.
Selma, CA
CAD029452141
88-09-24
PCP
PCP,
dioxins
Agricultural,
residential,
and industrial
<4
16,100 yd3 soil
Solidification/
stabilization, capping
(continued)
Chapter 2 Wood-Treating Sites and Their Cleanup | 27
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
South Cavalcade
Street,
Houston, TX
TXD980810386
88-09-26
Creosote
PAHs
Residential,
commercial,
& industrial
66
30,000 yd3 soil,
50,000,000 gal
groundwater
Soil washing and
capping;
groundwater and soil
washings pump and
treat; offsite
incineration or
recycling of NAPLs;
groundwater
monitoring.
Bioremediation of soil
and groundwater if
PRP demonstrates
equivalent
performance and
costs
Southern Maryland
Wood Treating
Hollywood, MD
MDD980704852
88-06-29
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Agricultural &
residential
25
102,000 yd3
soil & sediment
Incineration onsite of
soil, sediments, and
tank liquids; ground
and surface water
pump and treat;
multimedia monitoring
Texarkana Wood
Preserving Co.
Texarkana, TX
TXD008056152
90-09-25
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Industrial,
residential,
agricultural
25
77,000 yd3
soil, sediments
& sludges,
16,000,000 gal
groundwater
Incineration onsite of
soil, sediment, and
sludges; pump and
treat groundwater
United Creosoting
Conroe, TX
TXD980745574
89-09-29
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins
Currently
occupied by a
company &
residential
subdivision
100
94,000 yd3 soil
Critical fluid
extraction onsite of
soil; offsite
incineration and
disposal of the liquid
organic concentrate
residues from critical
fluid extraction; air
monitoring
United Creosoting
Conroe, TX
TXD980745574
86-09-30
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs,
PCP,
Dioxins (no
tetra)
Business &
residential
100
?
Dispose of the soils
contaminated when
an appropriate
facility or innovative
technology becomes
available; temporary
cap over
consolidated soils
(continued)
28 | Cleaning Up Contaminated Wood-Treating Sites
TABLE 2-1: Cleanup Strategies Selected by EPA for Superfund Wood-Treating Sites (Cont’d.)
Site Name
Location
ROD No.
ROD Date
Chemical
useda
Primary contaminants
Current
land use
Site
area/
acres
Vol. material
to be treated
Remediation strategyb
Westline Site
Westline, PA
PAD980692537
86-07-03
Creosote
PAHs
na
40
710 yd3 soil
Incineration of
deposits with a high
heating value and
low ash content;
transport wastes to
offsite RCRA facility
Wyckoff Co./
Eagle Harbor,
Bainbridge Island,
WA,
WAD009248295
92-09-29
Creosote,
PCP
PAHs, PCP
Primarily
residential
40
<7,000 yd3
sediment
Solidification/
stabilization; offsite
disposal if
necessary; capping
TABLE 2-2: Evaluation of Presumptive Remedies for Wood-Treating Sites
Contaminants at Site
PCP
Presumptive Remedy
Selected
Incineration
Efficiency of Contaminant Removal
90-99% (B,P,F)a
Creosote
Thermal desorption
82-99% (B,P,F)
Creosote and PCP,
PCP and CCA,
Creosote and CCA, or
Bioremediation
Average of 87% for PAHs and
74% for halogenated phenols and creosols (P)
Creosote, PCP, and CCA
Immobilization
80-90% TCLPb (B,P,F)
CCA
Immobilization
80-90% TCLP (B,P,F)
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, “Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites,” EPA/540/F-95/006 (Draft), Washington, DC, May 1995.
NOTES:
a Performance efficiencies have been demonstrated in benchmark (B), pilot scale (P), or (F) final remedies.
b
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure is a test of the effectiveness of immobilization methods.